What a shit response.
Chuckles. Well, let’s see where this goes. :-)
One time cost of an iPhone =/= a health insurance monthly premium. How is this still a viable example? A free market conservative in love with economics would at least have provided an example of how the two are even in the same ballpark.
How badly the analogy is flawed isn’t really the issue at hand. The larger point is that to afford a costly necessity, one is forced to give up luxuries. If Chaffetz’s had used, say, a Corvette rather than an iPhone, we (hopefully) wouldn’t be quibbling over the matter.
(I sincerely hope you’re not defending the “rights” of people driving luxury automobiles to have a dole when their health care premium bill comes around.)
Your entire response is riddled with typical “they did it too” ….
Nonsense. There are four key takeaways from my earlier response, and none of them were “they did it too”. The first is that Obama, and the idea that the mandate would not work, was correct. The second is that the CBO, because of the failure of the mandate, is not dependable in scoring health care plans, as long as they hold that the mandate is effective. The third is that without cost control, any and all insurance schemes will ultimately fail. Finally, the point is made that the reason why everyone is creating programs have have a hard time making the math work is because the public wants health care without paying for it; and thus, the suggestion that taxes should be raised is being cowardly avoided. The Hilarycare point is simply a digression.
Instead of attempting a serious refutation of any of those four points, you’ve instead introduced a straw man argument. I am uninterested in defending arguments I did not make. Sorry.
and “the ACA is terrible” remarks without actually providing viable data as to how the GOP plan is going to benefit anyone under the 1% mark (who would feasibly be saving +33k and upwards with the new plan).
Of course I didn’t. I was refuting a poorly thought out and very misleading article which expressed multiple falsehoods. How the AHCA will turn out, seeing that whatever ultimately passes will be heavily revised from what’s before the House at this point, is an entirely different matter for discussion.
And my goodness I’m tired of hearing about the CBO “being wrong”.
I am sorry that the facts hurt your feelings. Economic analysis is often like that, however. :-)
Your response is inherently optimistic, apparently, as the logic of the CBO being wrong could be applied negatively, and instead of 14 million uninsured in the first year it might be 20 million. I’d love to see numbers about how even a drop of (let’s say super optimistic) 8 million healthy people would work to stabilize the healthcare marketplace in favor of the consumer.
Serious question? Seems kind of obvious. The ACA is approaching death spiral because the percentage of enrollees that need to be Invincibles to make the scheme work was 40%; the ACA seems to have leveled at 26% Invincible enrollment.
The obvious reason is that their premiums are elevated because the ACA dictates that no individual in the Plan can be charged more than triple that of the healthiest Invincible. So, the premiums of BOTH have to rise commensurate with the need to mitigate risk, leading many Invincibles to choose not to enroll.
The AHCA adjusts this ratio to 5:1; this will allow premiums of riskier enrollees to rise while the premiums of the Invincibles are lowered, IN THEORY leading more to enroll into the system and (hopefully) reaching the 40% level previously mentioned, thus stabilizing the system.
No, I’m sure you’ll tell them to forego air conditioning or some such in lieu of a monthly premium, because it’s a choice to turn it on or some other insane and terrible comparison.
Please, no more straw men. You’re boring me to tears.
Let’s try a different tactic. Compassionate economist. One that focuses on the economic viability of the person, not the statistic or catchy phrase that lets you group an entire subset of people together.
Sorry, this is all governed by actuarial science, which by definition groups subsets of people together. You’re not going to get the insurers — — or even the government, if THEY were the insurer — — to operate otherwise.